DCPCUP-2016-02359 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT A TO TOWN OF COTTAGE GROVE CUP ACTION REPORT 02359 GRYFFINDOR The minutes from the Plan Commission Meeting dated August 24, 2016 were provided to the Town Board for review prior to the September 6, 2016 meeting. The Town Board not only referenced the Plan Commission considerations in the Town Board's deliberation, but also expressly adopted the Plan Commission's finding that the standards required for issuance of a conditional use permit were not met. The CUP was denied unanimously by the Plan Commission and the Town Board. The standards that were not satisfied, as well as specific findings therefore, are summarized below and shall be included in the minutes by reference and provided to Dane County as an attachment to the CUP Action Report: 1. That the establishment, maintenance,or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety,comfort or welfare. FINDING: NOT SATISFIED,for the following reasons: a. The Plan Commission determined that establishment,maintenance and operation of the sand pit as presented would be detrimental to or endanger public health,safety and welfare. b. The applicant was questioned as to whether there was any indication that there was sand or other usable material on the site. The applicant thought there might be,but did not know and had no particular information confirming investigation of the site as a sand pit. The Plan Commission found that the proposed conditional use was far too speculative and that the application appeared to be a pretext for use of the area as a crushing and transfer site. The Plan Commission balanced the lack of evidence that the resource material exists on the proposed site, the existence of numerous other similar sites in the area,and the adverse impacts at the proposed site and concluded that,while there was almost no benefit or need for use of the proposed site as a sand pit,issuing a CUP for the proposed use would be detrimental to public health,comfort and welfare. C. The public interest in safe access to STH 12-18 from the county road adjacent to the proposed sand pit was also considered. Trucks would access the proposed sand pit from STH 12-14 to a county road to a town road. The town road could not withstand loaded truck traffic. The applicant agreed that he would install a new town road between the proposed sand pit and the county road. The county road then connects to an at-grade crossing at STH 12-18. This raised two additional public safety concerns. First,residents provided anecdotal evidence as to the impact of these trucks on the county road and increased traffic flow on the county road. Second, residents raised concerns as to how this type of increased truck traffic would affect the at-grade crossing onto STH 12-18.The Plan Commission found that the proposed use would increase truck traffic considerably and would increase hazards at the at-grade entrance to STH 12-18. The proposed use would negatively affect public safety.The applicant was unwilling to limit the number of trips from the proposed site. Trips at the low end of the range listed in the application was found to be detrimental to public safety and at the high end was found to endanger public safety. The applicant and Plan Commission agreed that access directly to STH 12-18 would not be attainable. d. Concerns were raised regarding dust control,particularly during crushing and transfer of materials. The applicant indicated that there was no source of water on the site to use for dust control,but stated that he would bring in water trucks as needed or use stormwater that accumulated in retainage areas.Without water on site there would be delays in bringing in a water truck to control dust,and allowing unplanned retainage areas to access surface water would mean mosquitoes would breed. The Plan Commission concluded that the approach